Education: Education Maintenance Allowance

Lord Adonis: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children and Families (Maria Eagle) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am pleased to announce an increase to the household income thresholds that are used to determine eligibility for receipt of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA). The upper household income threshold will increase to £30,810 (for applications using the 2005–06 tax year). These increases are in line with the retail prices index, following the approach used for uprating other benefits.
	The Learning and Skills Council has operational responsibility for EMA and is in the process of communicating the increase to partners, stakeholders and young people.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Home Office (Tony McNulty) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	A meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council was held on 21 February. My noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, Cathy Jamieson, Minister for Justice for Scotland, and I represented the United Kingdom.
	The Austrian presidency opened the council with the adoption of the A points, including the European order for payment procedure. A constructive debate took place on the proposal for a regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). There was broad support for the presidency's aim of agreeing a package of measures on Rome II. Discussion focused on Article 6 (defamation). The Commission confirmed that its revised proposal, to be issued imminently, would exclude defamation from the scope of the regulation. But it would suggest including this issue in the review clause. The UK is one of a number of member states that support the Commission in preferring exclusion.
	The Council also considered several other articles: notably, Article 4 (product liability), Article 23 (the relationship between ROME II and internal market measures such as the e-commerce directive), Article 22 (public policy) and Article 3A (freedom of choice). There is still further work to be done to conclude this proposal in the light of these discussions. However there is now cause for optimism that the difficult defamation issue will be resolved satisfactorily as part of a package which the presidency hopes to settle during its term of office.
	The directive on the retention of electronic communications data was adopted by a qualified majority, where the UK voted in favour. This was agreed during the UK presidency and was a real success in terms of delivering an important part of the EU's approach to tackling terrorism.
	The council confirmed agreement to the provisions on the competent authorities for issuing and executing an European evidence warrant (EEW), and the grounds for refusal based on privileges and immunities and lack of measures available for execution. Discussion then focused on the outstanding issue of whether and, if so how, to define the offences for which dual criminality would not be required as a prerequisite to execution of an EEW. The majority of member states, including the UK, supported a presidency compromise proposal to follow the model used in the European arrest warrant by attaching explanations of some of the offences in a non-binding Council declaration. However, two member states argued instead that the definitions, in particular of terrorism, sabotage, racism and xenophobia, and computer-related crime, should be included in an annexe to the framework decision. Negotiations will continue at expert level.
	The Council took note of new arrangements for the handling of first pillar initiatives which contain criminal law provisions, introduced as a result of the Court's judgment of 13 September 2005 (Case C-176/03 Commission v Council). The aim is to have in place a mechanism which allows for the immediate identification of any provisions on criminal law in Commission initiatives and for member state JHA experts to start analysis of those provisions as early as possible in the negotiation. They acknowledge the need to examine each initiative on a case-by-case basis but stress the role of COREPER II (Ambassadors) in managing the process. The Commission confirmed its intention to bring forward new proposals for directives on environmental crime, counterfeiting of intellectual property rights, and ship-source pollution.
	Under AOB, member states were encouraged to fully participate in the Commission's study on the creation of a common format for the exchange of information on national criminal records. The importance of ensuring continued engagement between the Balkan countries and the EU in combating trafficking of human beings, organised crime and terrorism was also reiterated.
	The Commission presented its communication on strengthening practical co-operation on asylum through the establishment of structures involving the national asylum services of the member states. It set out the three core areas for activity: establishing a single procedure; developing a common approach to country of origin information; and providing assistance to relieve asylum pressure points. The UK welcomed the Commission's communication but emphasised the need to take a practical rather than legislative approach as the ideas set out in the communication were developed. The presidency clarified that the proposed "asylum co-operation network" should be a tool rather than a new structure.
	The Commission advised that it proposed bringing forward a list of 11 countries to form the basis of a minimum list of safe countries of origin. An analysis of the country conditions was being prepared to help to assess whether the countries fit the criteria for the safe list. Based on this analysis, the Commission would draw up a formal proposal for an initial minimum common list of safe third countries as provided for under Article 29 of the Asylum Procedures Directive.
	The Commission briefly introduced its Green Paper on a European migration network, stressing that the aim was to improve upon existing structures rather than create new ones. Member states were urged to send their written responses to the Commission as soon as possible and to participate in an expert meeting planned for early April. These would help to inform a Commission proposal which was expected by the end of 2006. The UK flagged up three issues of concern: the proposal to make national contact points independent of government, which could inhibit efficient information exchange (e.g. confidential information); the role of the Commission, rather than member states, in appointing NCPs; and the need to ensure coherence between various information exchange mechanisms in order to avoid unnecessary duplication and administrative burdens.
	During the Mixed Committee, the presidency introduced its note on the Schengen information system (SIS II), emphasising the positive response to the presidency's revised proposal for the draft legal instruments. The presidency also restated that it was important that the role of the institutions in the governance of SIS II was clarified and that SIS II had comprehensive data protection standards.
	The Council decision amending the administrative costs of processing visa applications seeks to increase the Schengen visa fee to €60 in order to cover the rising administrative costs resulting from the introduction of biometrics. Most member states and the Commission were able to agree that the visa fee should be increased to €60 by the beginning of 2007. However, they all stressed the need to put in place some system of exemptions to ease the impact of the fee increase on neighbouring countries.